Saturday, February 1, 2020

Impeach This – Gallup: American Satisfaction Poll Highest Since January 2005


As we start to head deeper into the 2020 presidential election year, there is some very good news for President Trump about how Americans rate their satisfaction; and some very bad news for Democrats who are trying to impeach this success.

According to the latest data from Gallup: “Americans’ average satisfaction rating for the 27 issues Gallup has tracked consistently since 2001 is now 47%. This is up three points from a year ago and is the highest since the January 2005 poll.”

In the measures of satisfaction covering the first three years of President Trump in office there are some remarkable increases in key measures:


As President Trump prepares to deliver his State of the Union speech to congress, these results will likely provide some measurable data for him to highlight.  Satisfaction with the U.S. economy has jumped a whopping 22 percent since President Trump took office.

As noted above, the economy, national security, military and state of race relations all provide double-digit increases in American satisfaction during President Trump’s first three years in office.


Additionally, 84 percent of Americans are satisfied with the overall quality of life, and 72 percent are satisfied with the opportunity for a person to get ahead if that person works hard.   Those are exceptionally strong numbers reflecting an overall optimistic outlook for the majority of Americans.


WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s upbeat view of the nation’s economy, military strength, economic opportunity and overall quality of life will likely resonate with Americans when he delivers his State of the Union address to Congress next week. Most Americans say they are satisfied with each of these aspects of the country as 2020 begins. The majority also feel positively about the positions of women and gays in society.  (read more)

at

The Big Club Dynamic - Democrat Branch



The fight within the Democrat party is much bigger than any media will report. 

Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders now leads most polls in the key states where the democrat primary battle will begin. With the grassroots Bernie-AOC wing carrying all the enthusiasm and momentum time is running out for the DNC club.

The dynamic within the always factional Democrat party is now quite remarkable.

Despite the transparent hit-jobs by DNC operatives against him, Bernie is in position to win every early state and he has a clear and visible path to the nomination. But the club has made some conspicuous counter moves.

The DNC club, the establishment writ large, has tried to advance several candidates to offset the rise of the far-left Democrat-Socialists within the Bernie-AOC group.

Their latest effort, aided by their media conscripts was (and is) Elizabeth Warren. [See NYT endorsement etc]


However, it ain’t working. The more the club has attempted to help Warren, the more transparent it became.

Voters can smell out a coordinated hit, and inauthentic ‘wokeness’ doesn’t work. Bernie has withstood their effort.

But watch out....

Remember, the only way Bloomberg could launch a late start was with the Club’s approval.

There were multiple motives for the Club to give Bloomberg the nod, but the most obvious was a firewall against the far-left caucus (AOC-Bernie).


Bloomberg represents the interests of the elitist globalists (modern Obama/Pelosi dems) and has spent millions to assist House races. Those purchases represent Bloomberg’s indulgency fees, and the Club supports him as part of the larger objective.
Essentially, in case of an actual outbreak/breakout of socialism, break glass – insert Bloomberg.




Remember, Tom Perez is DNC chairman. Perez is an old-school Alinsky ideologue within the Chicago team. The Perez outlook is the same as Barack Obama. Recently this Club, headed by Perez, appointed Barney Frank to the DNC rules committee. 
Frank is a pure-blooded establishment pick. Barney then brought John Podesta into the boardroom and gave another pure establishment blue-blood a seat on the DNC rules committee.


The Bernie-AOC crew noticed the DNC establishment move immediately and sounded some alarm bells.

This is the fight within the Democrat party itself. It is a much bigger -and more consequential- fight than the decades-long Tea Party -vs- the Republican establishment. 
The club authorized, then watched, Hillary Clinton hit Tulsi then Bernie. No-one came to Clinton’s defense when the AOC grassroots crew hit Clinton back much harder.

The club probed.

The club tested.

The club learned. 

Buttigieg is nothing. Biden can’t hold up even with all of the massive cover provided by the media and party apparatus. Elizabeth Warren cannot pull it off. The Club can obviously see all of this in hard data and internal polling.


As a consequence, the Club is now moving all the clutter away from the fire alarm…

Bernie has the most clear path to the nomination, but the Club dynamic is still in play. 
Watch for how the club positions Bloomberg.

I doubt the convention firewall can work; and it’s more likely the outcome will be the Club eventually agreeing to support Bernie-AOC but not for the reasons most grassroots Marxists would think. 
There’s a possibility the Club would eventually plan to push the base to the extremes in an effort to suffer the greatest loss. Within that loss the Club can then attempt to destroy the pesky AOC wing forever.

Never let a crisis go to waste.... 
Here’s an example of pushing the extreme: Elizabeth Warren attempts ‘peak wokeness’ by announcing her cabinet will be decided by transgendered grade-schoolers. 

WATCH:


at

Romney fosters 2024 speculation....


Romney fosters 2024 speculation with
criticism of Trump during impeachment

Mitt Romney is stoking suspicions that he is eyeing a third White House bid in 2024 after the Utah Republican broke with his party and insisted on witnesses at President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

Along with centrist Susan Collins of Maine, Romney was one of just two Senate Republicans to join the Democrats in a failed vote to subpoena fresh testimony. The 2012 Republican presidential nominee might yet acquit Trump on two articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but consistent criticism of Trump throughout impeachment, a GOP rarity, capped by support for witnesses has some Republicans convinced Romney is jockeying to reclaim the party.

“Mitt Romney is a bitter, jealous man who looks at President Trump and wishes he could be him. This is about Romney’s ego, nothing else,” said Jason Miller, a Republican strategist who advised Trump during the 2016 campaign and co-hosts a podcast with Steve Bannon, the president’s former White House counselor. 

A second Republican strategist neither affiliated with nor opposed to Trump agreed that Romney’s maneuvering during the four-month impeachment process was calculated. This veteran operative predicted the senator would be active after the November elections, trying to restore the internationalist, “Chamber of Commerce” Republicanism that dominated the GOP before the elevation of Trump, a populist and a nationalist.

“He is cynically betting on an electoral disaster in 2020,” this Republican said, requesting anonymity in order to speak candidly and preserve relationships with key establishment figures. “I think he believes he will be the only guy who will look like he was in the right on the road to hell.” 

Prior to the 2016 election and since, Romney has periodically rebuked Trump. At first, this fueled speculation Romney might challenge the president in the 2020 GOP primary. Since impeachment, the senator’s pointed criticism of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has led some Republicans to believe that he has plans to challenge for control of the party if the president is ousted or after he is termed out of office.

But Republican insiders connected to Romney said in interviews Friday that the senator’s critics are misinterpreting his intentions and misunderstanding what he hopes to accomplish with his recently revived political career. 

Utah Republicans have mixed feelings about Trump, giving the senator more political latitude to criticize the president and oppose his agenda than almost any other GOP member of Congress. From the moment he launched his Senate campaign, Romney promised to praise and criticize Trump as warranted. Romney is simply keeping that promise, said Boyd Matheson, who advised Romney’s 2018 bid and is a former chief of staff to Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah.

“He is doing what he said he would do,” said Matheson, now the opinion editor of the Deseret News in Salt Lake City. “He knows the president is transactional, so he isn’t worried about a relationship. He will continue to carve out policy pieces, where he will mostly agree with the president and will call him out on principle or his personal conduct.”

Romney, 72, ran for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, losing to incumbent Democratic icon Ted Kennedy, who died in 2009. He ran for president twice, once in 2008 and again in 2012. 

Although some Republicans believe Romney ran for the Senate as a steppingstone to a third act in presidential politics, GOP insiders who know him well and still talk to him say his decision to run for Senate signaled the exact opposite. They also believe that Romney understands that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted away from his brand of politics.

“He knows that chance has passed and the party has moved in a different direction,” a former Romney adviser said.



at

Sorry, Democrats, Ukraine Actually Did Meddle in the 2016 Election



Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) asked a question on behalf of several other senators and himself during the Q&A session of the Senate impeachment trial yesterday:
Given that the Senate is now considering the very evidentiary record assembled and voted on by the House, which Chairman Nadler has repeatedly claimed constitutes overwhelming evidence for impeachment, how can the Senate be accused of engaging in what Mr. Nadler described as a cover-up if the Senate makes its decision on the exact same evidentiary record the House did?

On this question, Patrick Philbin, Deputy Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant to the President in the Office of White House Counsel and a former clerk for my favorite US Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, took the Democrats to school once again!

He addressed two important issues in answering this question, with the Ukrainian election meddling being the second part of his answer. Here is what he said:
Philbin: I think that’s exactly right. I think it’s rather preposterous to suggest that this Senate would be engaging in a cover-up to rely on the same record that the House managers have said is overwhelming. They’ve said it dozens of times; they’ve said in their view that they’ve had enough evidence presented already to establish their case beyond ANY doubt, not just beyond a reasonable doubt. And it’s totally incoherent to claim at the same time that it would be improper for the Senate to rely on that record. Your judgment may be and should be, we submit, different from the House managers assessment of that evidence because it hasn’t established their case at all. But if they’re willing to tell you that it’s complete and that it has everything they need to establish everything they want, I think you should be able to take them at their word that that’s all that’s there. And to switch now to say, well, no, we need more witnesses … I mean, it just demonstrates they haven’t proved their case … they don’t have the evidence to make their case. And as I went through a minute ago, they have already presented a record with over 28,000 pages of documents. They’ve already presented video clips of 13l; witnesses. You’ve already heard evidence of the key witnesses. It was their process. They were the ones that said what the process was gonna be, how it had to be run, who ought to testify, and when to close it – when to decide if they had enough. And you heard all of the key highlights from that. And that is sufficient for this body to make a decision.
I just want to turn to one point in response to something that was said (by the House managers) a couple of minutes ago. And we keep hearing repeatedly today the refrain of … the idea that President Trump was somehow trying to peddle Vladimir Putin’s conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election. And the House Democrats try to present this binary view of the world – that only one country and one country alone could have done something to interfere in the election, and it was Russia. And if you mention any other country doing something related to election interference, you’re just a pawn of Vladimir Putin trying to peddle his conspiracy theory. That is obviously not true. More that one country, and foreign nationals from more than one country could be doing different things for different reasons in different ways to try to interfere in the election. And that’s exactly what President Trump was interested in in the telephone call … the July 25th transcript. He mentions Crowdstrike, he mentions the server, but he talks about, he says, “There are a lot of things that went on; the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.” So he’s talking about much more than just the DNC server, and he closes again saying, … he refers to Robert Mueller’s testimony and says, “A lot of it started in Ukraine. There’s a lot of stuff going on.” Twice in that exchange, he says “there’s a lot of stuff going on … the whole situation.” And what is that referring to? Surrounding yourself with the same people … and President Zelensky immediately refers to changing out the [Ukrainian] ambassador [to the US] because the previous ambassador who had been there under Poroshenko had written an op-ed criticizing President Trump during the election. We also know that there was a Politico article in January 2017 cataloging multiple Ukrainian officials who did things either to criticize President Trump or to assist a DNC operative, Alexandra Chalupa, in gathering information against the Trump campaign. And they [the House managers] said in the record that there was no evidence in the record … no one said that there was anything done by Ukraine. That’s not true. One of their star witnesses, Fiona Hill, specifically testified in her public hearing – because she said she went back and checked because she hadn’t remembered the Politico article [when she was first deposed in the SCIF] … and then she said that she acknowledged that some Ukrainian officials “bet on Hillary Clinton winning the election.” And so it was quite evident in her words that they were trying to favor the Clinton campaign including by trying to collect information on people working in the Trump campaign. That was Fiona Hill. She acknowledged that Ukrainian officials were doing that. So this idea that it’s a binary world – it’s either Russia or Ukraine – if you mention Ukraine, you’re just doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding – is totally false. And you shouldn’t be fooled by that. Various Ukrainians were doing things to interfere in the election campaign, and that’s what President Trump was referring to.

It’s about damn time that this got into the public record! The Democrats and the legacy media have been pushing the myth that Ukrainian meddling allegation is just a Russian-originated conspiracy since they began their “impeachment inquiry” last September. They know that they’ve got a LOT to hide in Ukraine, and it’s not just Hunter Biden-related corruption! And that’s why Democrats have used the old “it’s been debunked” claim about Ukraine election meddling just as they are using it to cover for the Bidens.

Patrick Philbin’s answer must have sent shivers down the spines of a lot of Democrats, as that signals that President Trump isn’t going to let this issue be forgotten. To the contrary, we will be hearing much more about it after he has been acquitted (Trumpenfreude!).

at

POWER GRAB: The Left’s Shadow Government


Hindsight Folks, Hindsight – Compare the Vindman, Ciaramella, Misko, McCord and Atkinson Network To Pelosi’s Rule Changes

We can see the basic outline of how a fraudulent impeachment scheme was constructed through an alliance of operatives in the National Security Council (NSC) and staff in the House committees. Our nation is currently dealing with the consequences.  However, if  we go back to Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 rule changes, there is clear forethought.

It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint aka a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Eric Ciaramella to file as a formal IC complaint.  This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.


NSC resistance member Alexander Vindman constructs a false story about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call; he shares the false story with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate and former NSC member).  Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance allies Sean Misko & Mary McCord working within the HPSCI.

Mary McCord (former DOJ-NSD and current Lawfare) then helps Eric Ciaramella create a fraudulent intelligence community whistle-blower complaint to submit to her former DOJ-NSD lawyer, now Intel Inspector General, ICIG Michael Atkinson.

…And that’s how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.

The “whistle-blower”, Eric Ciaramella, had prior contact with the staff of the committee. This is admitted. So essentially the “whistle-blower” had contact with Sean Misko and/or Mary McCord; and then ICIG Michael Atkinson modified the whistle-blower rules to facilitate the outcome.

There is the origination. That’s where the fraud starts.

The coordination between Misko-McCord, the Whistle-blower (Ciaramella) and Michael Atkinson is why HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff will not releasethe transcript from Atkinson’s testimony.

With that basic network in mind, if we go back through Pelosi’s rule changes there is a clear design to facilitate exactly this process.

They planned this out for a long time.

 FLASHBACK – January 2019: Remember when we warned [November 8th, 2018] that a convergence of left-wing groups, activists, DNC donors and specifically the Lawfare team, would align with (and meet) incoming Democrat leadership to construct a road-map for the “resistance” priorities?

Well, exactly that planned and coordinated outcome is visible as incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presents her new rules for the 116th congress.


[IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi has selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about new powers granted to the House Counsel.]

The Pelosi House rules clearly present the outline for an impeachment calendar as directed by changes to the oversight committees. Additionally, there is a myriad of new processes which appear to have been developed through the Lawfare alliance. Here’s some of the overview (full pdf below):

♦ On page #2, we see a few key points. Pelosi sets up a new, much narrower, oversight priority for Chairman Elijah Cummings; specifically to tailor oversight to the White House and President Donald Trump. Additionally we see the outlined time-schedule for hearings.
In subsection “k” the “clarification” is the narrowing of Elijah Cummings focus. “Oversight Over the Executive Office of the President“. This sets up the system for Cummings to target President Trump, his family, and all members of the executive branch as they relate to specific White House functions.

The Pelosi rules tell Chairman Cummings to deliver his schedule for his investigation(s) to the House by April 15th, 2019. Thereafter the hearing sessions will commence. The objective of those hearings is House impeachment of the President; so now we know the general timeline the Democrats plan to follow.

♦ To help achieve that objective on Page #3 Pelosi changes the rules on depositions:
In previous oversight hearings depositions of witnesses could not be conducted by counsel unless minority members were also present. Pelosi removes that rule allowing an expanded team of House lawyers to question anyone regardless of whether there is a republican present to defend/protect the interests of the witness or target.

♦ Speaker Pelosi also removes any term-limits on committee Chairs. This allows greater political influence and power to the most senior members of the Democrat party.

Additionally, in the event Republicans develop immediate defensive plans to push back against the weaponization of these oversight committees, Pelosi gives her Chairs 60 days to make up the rules for their committees so they can deflect any defenses.

♦ On Page #5 Pelosi removes rules banning head-wear on the House floor. This rule change is intended to permit new Muslim members to wear Islamic-compliant Hijab head coverings.

♦ Also on page #5, House Speaker Pelosi also removes the rule requiring a 3/5th majority vote to raise middle-class income taxes. This paves the way for Democrats to raise income taxes by a simple majority vote.

♦ Following with the investigative plans for impeachment; and in conjunction with all new powers granted to a massively expanded group of House lawyers with new and expanded power; page #7 has specific rules to benefit HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff:

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff can now, autonomously, demand and instruct depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the House Intelligence Committee does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any of the targets, or have any republican members present therein. [Schiff granted far more power than Nunes.]

♦ Page #9 is the beginning of a very interesting new power being granted to an expanded office of House Legal Counsel:

This is only the first part of this Pelosi rule. This part speaks to coordination with Lawfare and similar activist groups outside government. The House will now defend Obamacare, and all other possible constructs, with a legal team – regardless of what the DOJ might be doing on the same legal matter. In essence, a mini-legislative DOJ branch that will fight the U.S. Dept of Justice if needed. (more on this in another section).

♦ Two rules on Page #10 are interesting. The first rule allows Non-Disclosure Agreements that no longer have to pass through ethics reviews. This permits House members to force staff to sign NDA’s that may or may not be ethically approved.

The second rule on page #10 is Speaker Pelosi rebuking any demand that House members should be forced to pay for sexual harassment settlements. By obfuscating the rule to overlay with the 1995 rules against any discrimination, essentially Pelosi removes any risk for members surrounding “harassment“. It’s a nice head-fake to create the appearance of something that doesn’t technically exist. Very progressive approach.

♦ Page #11 creates a new House Committee for Climate Change. [15 members: 2 chairs, 7 democrats and 6 republicans]:


♦ Page #13 is the most interesting, and ties back to the Page #9 rule.
Here Speaker Pelosi sets up an internal House division of lawyers, paid with taxpayer funds, to defend Obamacare against any adverse action. In essence Pelosi is setting up her own Legislative Branch division of justice, to fight against the Executive Branch U.S. Department of Justice if needed.


The primary issue surrounds defending Obamacare from possible legal removal. However, it doesn’t take a deep political thinker to see where this approach ends up. It would be naive to think the Lawfare group (Benjamin Wittes) did not help create this new internal legal system.

Normally/traditionally House Counsel represents the interests of the entire Legislative Branch on any issue that might surface. However, Pelosi is setting up a legal activist agency within the House Counsel that will specifically “advocate” for Democrat priorities, against the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and use taxpayer funds to finance the scheme.

Speaker Pelosi is creating her own mini DOJ inside the legislative branch. And, with additional investigative powers granted to House committees, we might even see a mini-FBI units, dispatched to conduct investigations and spy operations, accountable only to speaker Pelosi. Heck, considering congress already has subpoena power, there’s no telling where this might end.

There’s more rules with various levels of consequence. I would suggest you get familiar with them; contrast against what republicans would never consider doing; and bookmark them for reference later this year when everyone starts asking: how is this possible? 

at

Yes, Trump’s Acquittal Is Real, And It’s Spectacular




The most amazing thing about Democrats and their allies in the media is that they never actually lose. Any time it seems like they lose, it’s actually the result of cheating and chicanery.

Hillary Clinton didn’t lose 2016, the Russians interfered and the Electoral College is racist. Stacy Abrams didn’t lose in Georgia, the election was stolen. And sure enough, the calls have already come out to say that House Democrats aren’t really going to lose the impeachment trial, because without additional witnesses the trial isn’t legitimate and the acquittal isn’t real.

Not this time. Mitch McConnell, President Trump’s legal team, and the GOP made fools of the Democrats and drank their milkshake. But this will not stop the aggrieved cackling heads from claiming this is all somehow fake. Take a gander at the sad-sack gaslighting below.




This is the behavior of toddlers told they won’t be stopping for ice cream. “It’s not fair.” Let’s break down this tremendously stupid argument. It was perfectly fair for Democrats to set all the rules in the House impeachment process. They held secret testimony, and then they held hearings with no GOP witnesses. Then they held hearings where maybe the White House could have witnesses, at Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s discretion, but those witnesses couldn’t have legal counsel.

Then instead of subpoenaing the witnesses they wanted like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, the Democrats said, “Oh my goodness, there’s no time for that, this is an emergency, we have to impeach Trump RIGHT NOW!” Even without those witnesses. At that point, they sat on the articles of impeachment for weeks hoping for some miracle to save their hopeless case. And by the way, if the acquittal isn’t legitimate because we didn’t hear from Bolton, how on earth is the impeachment itself legitimate?

The speed with which coordinated Democratic talking points infect the news media represents some of the most efficient propaganda the nation has ever seen. Efficient, but not effective. Only those already in the pews of the Church of Orange Man Bad are buying this latest nonsense argument. The U.S. Senate decides what an impeachment trial looks like, and whatever they decide is by definition legitimate.

Now that this unbelievable waste of five months inflicted on the American people in an attempt to undermine their democratic rights is coming to an end, the takeaway is not that Republicans acted unfairly, it’s that Democrats predictably got their rear ends kicked.

Those same Democrats were warned for months that this was the only outcome their doomed impeachment could lead to, but nonetheless they persisted, and made fools of themselves.

Conservatives today should be celebrating and mocking a media that still doesn’t understand how wrong it constantly is and why. The leftist establishment took their best shot at President Trump and today it glances harmlessly off his chin.

Make no mistake: Donald Trump’s acquittal is real, and it is spectacular.


at